Il 29/05/2012 19:09, Stefan Weil ha scritto:
> Am 29.05.2012 15:35, schrieb Stefano Stabellini:
>> qemu_rearm_alarm_timer partially duplicates the code in
>> qemu_next_alarm_deadline to figure out if it needs to rearm the timer.
>> If it calls qemu_next_alarm_deadline, it always rearms the timer even if
>> the next deadline is INT64_MAX.
>>
>> This patch simplifies the behavior of qemu_rearm_alarm_timer and removes
>> the duplicated code, always calling qemu_next_alarm_deadline and only
>> rearming the timer if the deadline is less than INT64_MAX.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini<stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com>
>>
>> diff --git a/qemu-timer.c b/qemu-timer.c
>> index de98977..81ff824 100644
>> --- a/qemu-timer.c
>> +++ b/qemu-timer.c
>> @@ -112,14 +112,10 @@ static int64_t qemu_next_alarm_deadline(void)
>>
>> static void qemu_rearm_alarm_timer(struct qemu_alarm_timer *t)
>> {
>> - int64_t nearest_delta_ns;
>> - if (!rt_clock->active_timers&&
>> - !vm_clock->active_timers&&
>> - !host_clock->active_timers) {
>> - return;
>> + int64_t nearest_delta_ns = qemu_next_alarm_deadline();
>> + if (nearest_delta_ns< INT64_MAX) {
>> + t->rearm(t, nearest_delta_ns);
>> }
>> - nearest_delta_ns = qemu_next_alarm_deadline();
>> - t->rearm(t, nearest_delta_ns);
>> }
>>
>> /* TODO: MIN_TIMER_REARM_NS should be optimized */
>
> Reviewed-by: Stefan Weil <s...@weilnetz.de>
>
> This patch clearly improves the current code and fixes
> an abort on Darwin (reported by Andreas Färber) and maybe
> other hosts. Therefore I changed the subject and suggest
> to consider this patch for QEMU 1.1.
Only with a Tested-by from Andreas.
Paolo
